FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Ahh, in theory, and in the abstract, what you say is true, vincent. But generally, that's not how it works when scientists wish to explore something. Usually, they have a belief that there is something to discover, or they discover something through serendipity. That is the wonder that follows observation, Firm. It is not a belief there is something to discover, it is a question about what they observe. You are straining to insert the word "belief" into Science. No strain at all, vincent. The difference is between the idealized version of "science" and the actual day-to-day reality of human beings. quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML quote:
I'd also like to make the distinction between "facts" and "assumptive facts". A "true" scientist never considers any "fact" as absolute, just another basis for thinking and expanding knowledge. Many times through out the history of science, a "fact" has been discovered not to be true. What, then, was the "fact" while it was believed to be true, and what is it once it has been proved to be false? I never made the claim for anything but assumptive fact, Firm. Science is a process for getting the best information possible and constructing workable models. For example, if I can throw a ball and hit Mars (given my super-rocket abilities) I have pretty good information that my Model of the solar system is very good. If the Model fails to predict an event we happily change the model. That is how Science is different from religious faith. The Faith Model does not change despite new discoveries. You have not made the claim of anything but assumptive facts, but many others are working with a different paradigm in mind when they argue that they have "the facts". I was simply pointing that out. Human beings construct theories of reality in their minds. We can do no other, and remain sane. The most open minded are suppose to be scientist, who's entire world view is suppose to be subject to change, based on experiential data and results, and the best of them are. Some atheist claim the same view, yet do not show the slightest open-mindedness, and therefore I discount their entire argument. If they can't get that basic issue correct, what does that say about the rest of their deductive and inductive abilities? I also do not believe in a hard either/or dichotomy of "science versus belief". Because of man's biological and psychological makeup, it is simply not possible to operate completely in either world. It must be a mix of both. Many religious thinkers understand this. Many scientist understand this. But this isn't what some of the "hard core" atheists wish to believe, and they are therefore fooling themselves, and show a lack self-awareness. quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML Again, the simple answer is that Science is not in the business of proving "facts." It is in the business of constructing the best workable Models of reality that we can. And those Models are always subject to change given new data unlike say models of heaven and hell. Again, I agree with you on the first part. Please explain this to some of the other posters. I'm not sure it is entirely accurate to say that "models of heaven and hell" are not subject to new data. If you research the history of most any major religion, you can see the doctrines and beliefs do indeed evolve over time. Firm
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|